Environmental activists have launched a suit in the Federal Court of Canada
to overturn federal legislation that limits their ability to oppose proposed
pipeline projects at regulatory hearings.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday, ForestEthics Advocacy and an activist named Donna
Sinclair have asked the court to strike down provisions of the National Energy
Board Act – passed as amendments in last year’s omnibus budget bill – that they
say unreasonably restrict public comment on project proposals.

Multimedia

Video

The activists are taking aim at Enbridge Inc.’s plan to reverse a pipeline, Line 9B, that
now runs from Montreal to southwestern Ontario, to connect with existing lines
and ship western oil to refineries in Quebec.

The suit comes as TransCanada Corp. is gearing up for another major project –
the $12-billion Energy East plan to pipe 1.1 million barrels per day of crude to
Eastern Canadian refineries and export terminals.

Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby, who is chairman of ForestEthics’ board and is
handling the lawsuit, said he will argue that the federal government
deliberately and arbitrarily sought to limit the ability of oil-industry critics
to have their voices heard before an appropriate public body. And as a result,
its legislation infringes on Charter freedoms.

“The Constitution guarantees my right to free expression,” Mr. Ruby said in
an interview. “It’s pretty clear that involves the right to appear before any
board that calls for public submissions … And you cannot limit that freedom of
expression in an arbitrary fashion.”

He will ask the court to overturn the amendments. He will also seek an
injunction to prevent the National Energy Board from making a recommendation to
cabinet on Enbridge’s Line 9B application until the constitutional challenge has
been dealt with.

Under the legislation, the NEB will hear only from witnesses directly
affected by the Line 9B project (which runs from Southern Ontario west of
Hamilton, through Toronto’s northern suburbs, and along Lake Ontario and the St.
Lawrence River to Montreal) or from critics who have expertise of use to the
board.

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver defended the changes, saying more than
95 per cent of those who sought to comment on the Line9 application were
accepted.

“Focusing submissions ensures the review is informed by the facts material to
the scope of the hearing, and protects it from being used as a tool to delay
decisions,” he said in an e-mailed statement.

Participants in the Line 9B applications had until Tuesday to file their
written submissions after being required to fill out a 10-page form to qualify
as intervenors. Mr. Ruby said thousands, even millions, of Canadians could see
their drinking water contaminated in the event of a major oil spill from the
line, and the rules arbitrarily prevent them from being heard. Ms. Sinclair, a
writer and activist from North Bay, Ont., who has family in Southern Ontario,
was refused standing.

ForestEthics was granted intervenor status but is challenging the NEB rules
that prevent a consideration of the environmental consequences of extracting the
crude oil that will be fed into the line. Activists have long urged the board to
consider the climate-change impacts of building pipelines that will enable a
major expansion of the carbon-intensive oil sands.

As ForestEthics attacks the constitutionality of the regulatory proceedings,
Montreal-based Equiterre has submitted an expert analysis of the project that
concludes the pipeline will be at risk of rupture due to cracking and
corrosion.

The U.S. expert, Richard Kuprewicz, also slammed Enbridge’s safety systems.
Enbridge spokesman Graham White said the company will respond to Mr. Kuprewicz’s
critique during the NEB hearings, but defended its safety procedures, saying
they have been significantly upgraded since a large spill near Kalamazoo, Mich.,
in 2010.

Topics

Next story

| Learn More

Discover content from The Globe and Mail that you might otherwise not have come across. Here we’ll provide you with fresh suggestions where we will continue to make even better ones as we get to know you better.

You can let us know if a suggestion is not to your liking by hitting the ‘’ close button to the right of the headline.

Restrictions

All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters is not liable for any errors or delays in Thomson Reuters content, or for any actions taken in reliance on such content. ‘Thomson Reuters’ and the Thomson Reuters logo are trademarks of Thomson Reuters and its affiliated companies.